CIA Director David H. Petraeus resigned Friday and admitted to having an extramarital affair, bringing a shocking end to his brief tenure at the spy agency and highly decorated national security career.
The affair came to light as part of an FBI investigation into a potential security breach involving Petraeus’s e-mails, according to federal law enforcement officials and a former senior intelligence official. The investigation uncovered e-mails describing an affair between Petraeus and Paula Broadwell, a former military officer and co-author of a glowing biography of Petraeus, according to two law enforcement officials who were briefed on the investigation.
More Benghazi cover-up.
Sure looks like it. And cleverly concealed until after the election. I am going to be interested in how quickly the press will sweep it under the rug to avoid any embarrassment to Obama.
Gentlemen, I would suggest a nice long walk in the fresh air might provide some needed relief and a clearer perspective.
I’m sorry that President Obama accepted his resignation. Obviously a moral failing on Petraeus’ part, but I’m not sure why it should disqualify him from being head of the CIA.
friendly,
Him allowing someone else to his email account has a tendency to get one removed. Spy agents and stuff like that, you know. The liberal media has done everything to keep Benghazi out of the limelight. Proven and true. To keep their president in office. Dastardly to the extreme. Excersizing one’s right to free speech in talking about it is a good thing. Wishing to silence those thoughts on your part is censorship of a reality where 4 United States citizens died.
Father Friendly, as a commanding officer and commander in the US military, Petraeus almost certainly had occasion to administer the uniform code of military justice to those under his command accused of adultery – and end their careers. Are you suggesting that he should have been above that law? As a member of the Canadian military, the law seems overly harsh to me and out of step with society at large. The way it has been explained to me by US military colleagues is that, if the military member tries to cover up an affair, they lack integrity cannot be trusted to be truthful in other affairs. I guess there is a certain logic. Some might say that the CIA is all about telling lies, but lying to your wife about having an affair would seem to fall outside the acceptable limit. I’m just an outsider looking in, but I suspect that most US military members would scoff at the conspiracy theories that are actively circulating.
The question is whether he resigned or was force out to shut him up and protect Obama. And why did this come out after the election when it was know prior to the election? 2, you are right given the Democratic parties approval of adultery, why was adultery their issue in forcing a resignation? I suspect it was the excuse, not the reason.
Although, if this was a honey trap, as DCI he would have been compromised.
Or was Petraeus instrumental in holding back help from the 4
Americans hoping to bring up a scandal before the election in the hopes that Obama would not be re-elected, and that upset Obama so he gave Petraeus the option of resignation or being publicly fired for treason?
If so then why is Obama refusing to let him testify when such testimony would get Obama off the hook?
He can be compelled by law to attend. But that is a good point you make. Just throwing all sides of thought on it out there.
Scandals of this sort involving an official in a highly sensitive position are just the sort of thing that foreign intelligence agencies love to learn about, and it has never escaped them that they could use such a scandal to bribe such officials into “cooperating” with them in spying for them with the threat of public exposure if they didn’t.
12. General Ham, as CINCAFRICOM was the senior U.S. military commander obligated to come immediately to the assistance of U.S. or allied forces under extreme military duress within his geographic area of responsiblity.
I am assuming that General Ham had given those orders to AFRICOM dedicated forces already staged within a reasonable reation time/distance (including an AC-130 gunship pre-staged in Spain and about 2.5 flying hous maximum from Bengahzi) such that they could go to the assistance of the Ambassador and his U.S. career/contract para-military forces in Libya.
And I am further assuming that the President, and it had to be him or his proxy, rescinded those orders and had General Ham summarily and immediately relieved of command.
Had General Ham not sent those relief forces he would have been ‘straight-forward guilty’ of a major violation of Article 99 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (Misbehavior in the face of an enemy).
The order to “stand down” was as order to all involved or who might potentially be involved in the U.S. military to violate their oaths of allegiance/oaths of office by not insisting that they not comply with Article 99.
Therefore, it seems to be a corollary that those involved in this incident in the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government were also guilty of a similar offense. If miltary law doesn’t apply to the Executive Branch then surely the moral and ethical principles, the spirit of the law, certainly do apply.
If this is not thoroughly examined by both the Senate and the House of Representatives then the Congress must be exposed as dysfunctional in this matter.
But by whom? Certainly not by 90% of the news media.
Loooks like he took one for the Team (O).